Like Crazy
Like Crazy is a nice movie, but I'm not sure I'd go farther than that with it. The movie is essentially Drake Doremus's visual musings on love- particularly young love- and how people who are right for each other will always find a way back to each other. I have to admit, immediately after seeing the movie, I thought it was awesome and fresh. The more I thought about it, however, the less I thought of it. This isn't to say it's horrible- or even remotely bad, it just has some flaws.
The story is fairly basic: Anna, a Brit, and Jacob, an American, meet and fall hard for each other at an L.A. University. Things get complicated when Anna decides to overstay her student visa and upon trying to return following a brief visit to her homeland is banned from entering the country. The movie explores whether these two who seem destined for each other can overcome a literal ocean as well as an ocean of complications that develop due to the physical ocean between them. They come together and fall off and come together and so on and so forth and we, the viewers, are invited along for a front row seat to the love, the struggles, the roller coaster ride is a long-distance relationship. Do Jacob and Anna have what it takes to make it through such complications as... well... their lives moving on? This is essentially the question at the heart of the movie. A question that I am not sure ever gets answered (not that there's anything wrong with that).
On the surface, the movie has a lot going for it. Writer/director Doremus opts to tell his tale in many places by showing you the story. You see Jacob and Anna fall for each other. The two don't necessarily need to tell you. This is done through heavy usage of montage scenes. Not a horrible way of doing it, but it does- at times- create a feeling that the movie bogs down into what amounts to little more than a string of interconnected music videos. The videos are full of subtle emotion and are generally pleasant to see, but it still feels a bit odd. Not that I'm a fan of filmmakers telling you what is happening at the expense of letting you see it for yourself. I'm not, but I think there has to be a balance between montages and movie scenes, and here the film leans heavily in favor of montage.
This may be because there is little dialog to fall back on. In fact, from what I understand there was very little to no written dialog in the script. Doremus- going for a more authentic feel, I suppose- had his actors largely improvise the dialog, feeding the scenarios and scenes to base their words on. It does make for an interesting movie, though at times the conversations seem to flatten out into awkwardness- if even slightly so. Is this more in keeping with real life? Sure, I suppose... but not in the way that the movie shows it. It seemed at times as though Jacob and Anna had barely known each other at times when they had clearly been intimately involved in each other's lives for a decent amount of time. It left me wondering if they didn't shoot the film out of sequence. Surely, by the end of shooting, Felicity Jones and Anton Yelchin would have developed some manner of solid chemistry and I do believe this is on full display for much of the film. I suppose on final analysis, the lack of written dialog isn't necessarily a strike against the film. It does provide what seem to be authentic moments throughout the movie- in fact it allows for many more of these than the peculiarly awkward exchanges.
In the end, I guess where the movie started to lose me was with how immature each of the main characters kind of comes off. I don't think Doremus was aiming to paint his two lovers as something of naive, clueless folks, but in some cases, this is how they end up on screen. Yelchin's Jacob is particularly guilty of this. After college, Jacob begins work as a furniture designer. Sure his work is supposed to have a distinctly American- if not Californian feel to it- but it seems to me that seeing as Anna has rather immaturely ignored the expiration of her student visa and is thus eventually marooned off in the UK, Jacob- if he is as crazy in love with Anna as he claims- could offer to make things work by heading across the pond to ply his trade. This is, in fact, brought up as a suggestion during the story, but Jacob roundly rejects the idea because "it would be really hard" as he put it. Yes, Anna was foolish almost to the point of it being unbelievable to completely ignore the implications of her decision to over stay her visa. She should have known better; after all, she was only initially looking at a three month separation from Jacob- something that hardly seemed worth risking the long term health of the relationship. But the fact that Jacob won't consider trying to go the extra mile for the love of his life simply because setting up shop in England would be too hard is kind of ridiculous. It would be another story completely if Jacob had a job where location mattered more. But he doesn't, and, as such, he kind of comes off as a completely selfish, barely invested boyfriend. It would be different if there were even family considerations hemming Jacob in, but there aren't. He just doesn't want to go through the extra effort of relocating to a new country to create his furniture. I guess even once-in-a-life-time love has its limits.
There are other examples of how these two lovers show their age and/or lack of maturity as well, but I suppose listing all the ways they bugged me in that manner would amount to little more than nitpicking. In truth, the movie has a lot going for it... starting with Yelchin and especially Felicity Jones and Jennifer Lawrence. Lawrence- who here plays Jacob's rival love interest- is proving to be a completely mesmerizing talent. She draws you in and forces a sense of empathy with her character. It was pretty cool to see. Jones, a relative newcomer and now festival darling is deserving- in my mind- of the loads of praise being sent her way. Just as Carey Mulligan was in An Education, Jones is an absolute breath of fresh air in this film. Nuanced, affecting, subtle, emotional, balanced- incredible work.
The movie also has the fact that it is an easy story to which to relate going for it as well. Many people have been through long distance relationships. The feelings these characters are experiencing are real. The complications to their relationship are easily based in reality. On that level, the movie isn't particularly hard to "get". And to top that off, it was gorgeously shot as well.
Are any of these enough to compensate for some awkwardness and frustrating character development? Well... yes, actually. In my mind they are. Like I said, at its core it's a nice movie depicting a good story through exceptional performances... it's just lacking in some spots (I really do wish the characters had shown a little more growth/maturity... particularly Jacob.. because I don't think it was Doremus's intention to make him a relatively selfish, moody dude... it's just hard for me to see his not wanting to invest the effort it would take to establish his business in the UK as justification for tossing away what seemed like a great thing for him... a great relationship.... but that's just me). I guess, in the end, it really was a hard movie to dislike, despite its blemishes... kind of like a good relationship, right? Well... yeah.. something like that.
Grade: B+
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Saturday, November 19, 2011
New to Me 2011: 5.) From the Sky Down
From the Sky Down
I've actually gone back and forth for a little while now on whether I should include this. From the Sky Down is the U2 documentary that revolves around the band looking back at their 1991 classic album "Achtung Baby". The movie is included in their extremely pricey, comprehensive boxed-set anniversary release of the album. It also debuted on Showtime. Which is where I caught it, because as much as I'd love to swim in that pool of rarities, archival material, and rough cuts, I just can't see dropping more than $100 on it. But none of that addresses my hesitancy to include a review here. There were two reasons I wasn't going to include it: 1.) I'm not sure it's ever going to be released any wider than those two avenues... thus making it more or less a TV movie and I've never reviewed TV movies before... and 2.) I love U2. LOVE them. They are my all-time favorite band. I've never heard a U2 album or song I didn't at least like. And many I have loved. For awhile, I mistakenly thought the Black Keys had jumped into my top favorite band spot. Then I just happened to pop "All That You Can't Leave Behind" into my car's CD player and I was awakened again. Felt silly for ever doubting them too. I don't know what it is that makes me love them so much, but it just clicks for me. In fact, if I stumbled onto a rough cut of Bono having a bout of diarrhea on the microphone- so long as he also sang and The Edge, Larry Mullen, and Adam Clayton backed him up with sonic delights... I'm pretty sure it would find regular rotation on my iPod. So, with adoration on that level... would it even make any sense for me to try to "analyze" (always in quotes with me) a U2 doc? Um, no, it wouldn't. But I'm going to write about it anyway. You can use the above as a disclaimer.
As you can imagine any U2 concert film or documentary is going to start as an A+ with me and work its way downward if the case should warrant it. And actually, From the Sky Down does have a few chinks in the armor. Most of them are stylistic. I'm not sure if you've heard the members of U2 speak, but they all sound alike- other than Adam Clayton who has a deeper voice and- as his band mates put it- "a posh British accent". During the first... maybe... half of the movie Director Davis Guggenheim has the band speak about their music, about what was driving them apart following their smash success "The Joshua Tree", and about their process of making music as a band. All great insights into the world of U2. But, I think, each perspective would have been made more- or perhaps less- interesting depending on which member of the band is speaking. And there lies the problem. Guggenheim didn't identify- or show- each member as he spoke. It was just words over images. And I had a devil of a time figuring out who was saying what. Some was evident just based on the content of what was being said. Some... well, I could only guess. The real problem here was actually Bono. It sounded like the band had agreed to give interviews on the album right after rehearsing (the movie- as I mentioned- involves the band looking back at the process of making Achtung Baby- their make-or-break album in 1991 [they indicated if the album didn't work for them, they were done as a band]. Their trip down memory lane- in terms of the doc- takes place as they prepare for their first appearance at the Glastonbury Music Festival where they will perform Achtung Baby in its entirety- or at least in heavy doses-during their set), and Bono's voice sounded weirdly distorted... or spent (Bono being notorious for having no concept of "holding back"... in anything I suppose). I can usually pick Bono's voice out pretty easily, but here he seemed to sound like a mix of both Larry and Edge. It made it difficult. Maybe that was Guggenheim's point. Maybe he wanted us to focus on what was being said over who was saying it as a way of stressing the band's mantra that everyone has a voice. But still, I wanted a better idea of whose voice was voicing at the time. This is hardly a fatal blow to the movie but it was irksome.
As was the band's penchant for skimming the surface when talking about their music. Or rather- speaking broadly. Don't get me wrong, it was interesting. Very interesting, but in the end, I felt like I didn't learn anything particularly new. Maybe just had a different spin. This could be because I'm way too big a fan and have read way too much about them. But, I actually think back to the Joshua Tree documentary and remember how in depth that was in terms of their crafting that album. This, again, seemed to talk more broadly about their overall approach to the music, why they chose Germany, how they were feeling after their failed Rattle and Hum movie adventure... but in terms of crafting the music, there wasn't much included. When they did go into, it was incredibly interesting- as when they described how the song "One" just sort of evolved. Awesome stuff. Wish there had been more.
I think part of the reason that it only really skimmed the surface is that Bono has maintained that the surest sign of a band falling apart is when they feel the need to look back. And it's clear that U2 still- in their minds at the very least- has a lot they are working towards. I don't know for certain that the whole band feels that way, but it might explain why Bono wouldn't want to dig deep into the process at that point. It should be noted that the richer detailed Joshua Tree doc- and Rattle and Hum- movie both were filmed right around the time Joshua Tree came out.
In the end, though, as you can imagine, I loved the documentary. I can't get enough of the band talking about their music, their process. It's especially great when they all participate in the action. Usually, Bono and to a lesser extent The Edge are the mouthpieces for the band. My favorite band member- in terms of speaking on camera- is probably drummer, Larry Mullen, Jr. To me, he always has keen insights, he just struggles to actually spit them out. I guess I can just relate to that. In any event, movie had several other gem-worthy tidbits. The Edge singing a stripped-down take on "Love is Blindness" was haunting and beautiful- this alone made the doc watchable. Learning that Rattle and Hum was a failure (I think it's a phenomenal look at a band searching for something bigger and better than themselves, about a group going on a journey to help them grow as musicians- while also hoping to share something with the world... like an information exchange... I guess most everyone at the time saw it strictly as an overly pompous vanity project) and how that both nearly drove the band apart and ultimately made them better at what they do was incredibly interesting. Then- of course- all the archival footage of the band from 20 years ago and the rehearsal takes from their Glastonbury practice sessions were awesome to see. So, for a fan, it definitely had a lot going for it. And for a fan on the level that I'm on it had a whole shit load going for it, namely 90 minutes of U2.
But I wonder from a casual fan's perspective whether it would have amounted to much. A few tidbits here and there maybe? Maybe it would have been 30 minutes too long? I don't know... because I'm nowhere near a casual fan. And despite the few flaws, I thought it was a treat to watch.
Grade: A
I've actually gone back and forth for a little while now on whether I should include this. From the Sky Down is the U2 documentary that revolves around the band looking back at their 1991 classic album "Achtung Baby". The movie is included in their extremely pricey, comprehensive boxed-set anniversary release of the album. It also debuted on Showtime. Which is where I caught it, because as much as I'd love to swim in that pool of rarities, archival material, and rough cuts, I just can't see dropping more than $100 on it. But none of that addresses my hesitancy to include a review here. There were two reasons I wasn't going to include it: 1.) I'm not sure it's ever going to be released any wider than those two avenues... thus making it more or less a TV movie and I've never reviewed TV movies before... and 2.) I love U2. LOVE them. They are my all-time favorite band. I've never heard a U2 album or song I didn't at least like. And many I have loved. For awhile, I mistakenly thought the Black Keys had jumped into my top favorite band spot. Then I just happened to pop "All That You Can't Leave Behind" into my car's CD player and I was awakened again. Felt silly for ever doubting them too. I don't know what it is that makes me love them so much, but it just clicks for me. In fact, if I stumbled onto a rough cut of Bono having a bout of diarrhea on the microphone- so long as he also sang and The Edge, Larry Mullen, and Adam Clayton backed him up with sonic delights... I'm pretty sure it would find regular rotation on my iPod. So, with adoration on that level... would it even make any sense for me to try to "analyze" (always in quotes with me) a U2 doc? Um, no, it wouldn't. But I'm going to write about it anyway. You can use the above as a disclaimer.
As you can imagine any U2 concert film or documentary is going to start as an A+ with me and work its way downward if the case should warrant it. And actually, From the Sky Down does have a few chinks in the armor. Most of them are stylistic. I'm not sure if you've heard the members of U2 speak, but they all sound alike- other than Adam Clayton who has a deeper voice and- as his band mates put it- "a posh British accent". During the first... maybe... half of the movie Director Davis Guggenheim has the band speak about their music, about what was driving them apart following their smash success "The Joshua Tree", and about their process of making music as a band. All great insights into the world of U2. But, I think, each perspective would have been made more- or perhaps less- interesting depending on which member of the band is speaking. And there lies the problem. Guggenheim didn't identify- or show- each member as he spoke. It was just words over images. And I had a devil of a time figuring out who was saying what. Some was evident just based on the content of what was being said. Some... well, I could only guess. The real problem here was actually Bono. It sounded like the band had agreed to give interviews on the album right after rehearsing (the movie- as I mentioned- involves the band looking back at the process of making Achtung Baby- their make-or-break album in 1991 [they indicated if the album didn't work for them, they were done as a band]. Their trip down memory lane- in terms of the doc- takes place as they prepare for their first appearance at the Glastonbury Music Festival where they will perform Achtung Baby in its entirety- or at least in heavy doses-during their set), and Bono's voice sounded weirdly distorted... or spent (Bono being notorious for having no concept of "holding back"... in anything I suppose). I can usually pick Bono's voice out pretty easily, but here he seemed to sound like a mix of both Larry and Edge. It made it difficult. Maybe that was Guggenheim's point. Maybe he wanted us to focus on what was being said over who was saying it as a way of stressing the band's mantra that everyone has a voice. But still, I wanted a better idea of whose voice was voicing at the time. This is hardly a fatal blow to the movie but it was irksome.
As was the band's penchant for skimming the surface when talking about their music. Or rather- speaking broadly. Don't get me wrong, it was interesting. Very interesting, but in the end, I felt like I didn't learn anything particularly new. Maybe just had a different spin. This could be because I'm way too big a fan and have read way too much about them. But, I actually think back to the Joshua Tree documentary and remember how in depth that was in terms of their crafting that album. This, again, seemed to talk more broadly about their overall approach to the music, why they chose Germany, how they were feeling after their failed Rattle and Hum movie adventure... but in terms of crafting the music, there wasn't much included. When they did go into, it was incredibly interesting- as when they described how the song "One" just sort of evolved. Awesome stuff. Wish there had been more.
I think part of the reason that it only really skimmed the surface is that Bono has maintained that the surest sign of a band falling apart is when they feel the need to look back. And it's clear that U2 still- in their minds at the very least- has a lot they are working towards. I don't know for certain that the whole band feels that way, but it might explain why Bono wouldn't want to dig deep into the process at that point. It should be noted that the richer detailed Joshua Tree doc- and Rattle and Hum- movie both were filmed right around the time Joshua Tree came out.
In the end, though, as you can imagine, I loved the documentary. I can't get enough of the band talking about their music, their process. It's especially great when they all participate in the action. Usually, Bono and to a lesser extent The Edge are the mouthpieces for the band. My favorite band member- in terms of speaking on camera- is probably drummer, Larry Mullen, Jr. To me, he always has keen insights, he just struggles to actually spit them out. I guess I can just relate to that. In any event, movie had several other gem-worthy tidbits. The Edge singing a stripped-down take on "Love is Blindness" was haunting and beautiful- this alone made the doc watchable. Learning that Rattle and Hum was a failure (I think it's a phenomenal look at a band searching for something bigger and better than themselves, about a group going on a journey to help them grow as musicians- while also hoping to share something with the world... like an information exchange... I guess most everyone at the time saw it strictly as an overly pompous vanity project) and how that both nearly drove the band apart and ultimately made them better at what they do was incredibly interesting. Then- of course- all the archival footage of the band from 20 years ago and the rehearsal takes from their Glastonbury practice sessions were awesome to see. So, for a fan, it definitely had a lot going for it. And for a fan on the level that I'm on it had a whole shit load going for it, namely 90 minutes of U2.
But I wonder from a casual fan's perspective whether it would have amounted to much. A few tidbits here and there maybe? Maybe it would have been 30 minutes too long? I don't know... because I'm nowhere near a casual fan. And despite the few flaws, I thought it was a treat to watch.
Grade: A
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Movie List 2011: 47.) Tower Heist
Tower Heist
Continuing to play catch up...
So...yeah... here we have Tower Heist. The movie that supposedly was Eddie Murphy's return to edgier/funnier fare. That alone was supposed to make this newsworthy and watchable. And you know what? I was pumped for it. Eddie's coming back! Not even the fact that this is a Ben Stiller movie could dampen my spirits. And I rarely like Ben Stiller movies (Zero Effect is about the only one I really liked). Eddie Freakin' Murphy is back!
Then... I realized... I actually don't know any Eddie other than the Nutty Professor/Dr. Doolittle/Shrek Eddie. Oh, well, Dream Girls Eddie too. So why the hell was I so excited. It was, after all, going to be a Ben Stiller movie first and foremost. I had seen a few minutes of 48 Hours and another few minutes of Coming to America. Don't remember much of either of those movies. Never seen Beverly Hills Cop or anything like that. But, I think it's somewhat safe to say that if this is the return of Eddie Murphy, the Eddie Murphy that everyone older than 9 supposedly loves... well, then, I don't know what the fuss was about in the first place. He wasn't particularly funny here. But, then again, neither was anyone else in the movie. Eddie had his moments, but really he came off sounding like Donkey from Shrek had hit the skids pretty hard, ended up in the ghetto, and adopted that lifestyle. Amusing at times, but not really funny.
Here's the thing though. I don't think this was anything close to a return to vintage 1980s Eddie Murphy form. For one, this movie was hardly edgy. A little bit of bad language doesn't really qualify for edge anymore. And secondly, there's no way that Eddie could ever return to form starring in a movie with Ben Stiller... unless Eddie kills Stiller's character during the opening credits. Then....well, if that wouldn't qualify as a return to form, it would qualify as a huge favor.
In any event, enough about Eddie Murphy. The fact is, he didn't really even have enough screen time to justify the hype. What this all boils down to is that despite the fact that Brett Ratner was the director, this was a typical Ben Stiller movie. Chuckle-inducing at it's funniest. Cringe-inducing on the whole. The whole thing felt like a sitcom with a preposterous set up. By that I mean the jokes. And the timing and feel. It had that whole "wait for it.... cue laugh track!" feel. And that's just a darn tired approach by now. Nothing is worse than when you can feel that the people in the movie think they're doing awesomely funny stuff. It almost always comes off as overcooked and barely humorous.
Trying to think if the movie had any redeeming factors... Gabourey Sidibe came off as a gimmick... Casey Affleck just didn't seem to fit in... Ben Stiller sucks... hmmm... maybe that it was somewhat timely? I mean the whole Bernie Madoff interest, I would think, is on the slippery slope towards back-of-the-mind-ville. But, you can hardly blame a movie for not being able to keep up on the freshest of the fresh stories in this 24-7 news cycle society in which we live. Movies do, after all, take time to develop and create. I'm also not going to dock it too many points for the absurdity of the plot. No, it isn't believable. In the least. But the movie does establish a baseline of asinine and then it proceeds from there. I'm not, however, willing to be so forgiving on some of the plot inconsistencies. When you have such a simple story, the least you could do is make sure it's at least a little... tidier.
But then... you're not going to check out a Brett Ratner/Ben Stiller collaboration because it features nuanced story-telling and an airtight script. Inevitably, you end up going to see a movie like this for one of a couple reasons: a.) you're bored and nothing else worthwhile is playing b.)Against all odds you like Ben Stiller or c.) you hate yourself. Guess which camp I fall into. I suppose in truth, it's d.) you have a movie pass and sick desire to break your previous movies-seen-in-the-theater-in-a-calendar-year record. Taking one for the team, then, to continue chasing my goal. Oh well, in the end, I only lose out on two hours of my life. I just hope I don't end up dying two hours before I'm really slated to. That would suck... Ben Stiller would get the last laugh... well, at least someone would be laughing because of a Ben Stiller movie... bam.
Alright... a redeeming factor...hmmmm... ok, I have two. One: Matthew Broderick's quirky take on Mr. Fitzhugh, a failed investment banker, was probably the most amusing thing about the movie. Not that any of the scenes were particularly worth stealing, but Broderick stole every one he was in (then subsequently tried to return them, claiming the fact that he had just walked out without paying for them was an innocent mistake). Two: it wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen. By a long shot.
So there you have it. I can't say it's even mildly funny. But I also can't say it's soul crushingly bad. It's definitely closer to the latter than the former though. Now I'm just trying to figure out how I can steal two hours of Ben Stiller's life so we can even up the score.
Grade: C-
Continuing to play catch up...
So...yeah... here we have Tower Heist. The movie that supposedly was Eddie Murphy's return to edgier/funnier fare. That alone was supposed to make this newsworthy and watchable. And you know what? I was pumped for it. Eddie's coming back! Not even the fact that this is a Ben Stiller movie could dampen my spirits. And I rarely like Ben Stiller movies (Zero Effect is about the only one I really liked). Eddie Freakin' Murphy is back!
Then... I realized... I actually don't know any Eddie other than the Nutty Professor/Dr. Doolittle/Shrek Eddie. Oh, well, Dream Girls Eddie too. So why the hell was I so excited. It was, after all, going to be a Ben Stiller movie first and foremost. I had seen a few minutes of 48 Hours and another few minutes of Coming to America. Don't remember much of either of those movies. Never seen Beverly Hills Cop or anything like that. But, I think it's somewhat safe to say that if this is the return of Eddie Murphy, the Eddie Murphy that everyone older than 9 supposedly loves... well, then, I don't know what the fuss was about in the first place. He wasn't particularly funny here. But, then again, neither was anyone else in the movie. Eddie had his moments, but really he came off sounding like Donkey from Shrek had hit the skids pretty hard, ended up in the ghetto, and adopted that lifestyle. Amusing at times, but not really funny.
Here's the thing though. I don't think this was anything close to a return to vintage 1980s Eddie Murphy form. For one, this movie was hardly edgy. A little bit of bad language doesn't really qualify for edge anymore. And secondly, there's no way that Eddie could ever return to form starring in a movie with Ben Stiller... unless Eddie kills Stiller's character during the opening credits. Then....well, if that wouldn't qualify as a return to form, it would qualify as a huge favor.
In any event, enough about Eddie Murphy. The fact is, he didn't really even have enough screen time to justify the hype. What this all boils down to is that despite the fact that Brett Ratner was the director, this was a typical Ben Stiller movie. Chuckle-inducing at it's funniest. Cringe-inducing on the whole. The whole thing felt like a sitcom with a preposterous set up. By that I mean the jokes. And the timing and feel. It had that whole "wait for it.... cue laugh track!" feel. And that's just a darn tired approach by now. Nothing is worse than when you can feel that the people in the movie think they're doing awesomely funny stuff. It almost always comes off as overcooked and barely humorous.
Trying to think if the movie had any redeeming factors... Gabourey Sidibe came off as a gimmick... Casey Affleck just didn't seem to fit in... Ben Stiller sucks... hmmm... maybe that it was somewhat timely? I mean the whole Bernie Madoff interest, I would think, is on the slippery slope towards back-of-the-mind-ville. But, you can hardly blame a movie for not being able to keep up on the freshest of the fresh stories in this 24-7 news cycle society in which we live. Movies do, after all, take time to develop and create. I'm also not going to dock it too many points for the absurdity of the plot. No, it isn't believable. In the least. But the movie does establish a baseline of asinine and then it proceeds from there. I'm not, however, willing to be so forgiving on some of the plot inconsistencies. When you have such a simple story, the least you could do is make sure it's at least a little... tidier.
But then... you're not going to check out a Brett Ratner/Ben Stiller collaboration because it features nuanced story-telling and an airtight script. Inevitably, you end up going to see a movie like this for one of a couple reasons: a.) you're bored and nothing else worthwhile is playing b.)Against all odds you like Ben Stiller or c.) you hate yourself. Guess which camp I fall into. I suppose in truth, it's d.) you have a movie pass and sick desire to break your previous movies-seen-in-the-theater-in-a-calendar-year record. Taking one for the team, then, to continue chasing my goal. Oh well, in the end, I only lose out on two hours of my life. I just hope I don't end up dying two hours before I'm really slated to. That would suck... Ben Stiller would get the last laugh... well, at least someone would be laughing because of a Ben Stiller movie... bam.
Alright... a redeeming factor...hmmmm... ok, I have two. One: Matthew Broderick's quirky take on Mr. Fitzhugh, a failed investment banker, was probably the most amusing thing about the movie. Not that any of the scenes were particularly worth stealing, but Broderick stole every one he was in (then subsequently tried to return them, claiming the fact that he had just walked out without paying for them was an innocent mistake). Two: it wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen. By a long shot.
So there you have it. I can't say it's even mildly funny. But I also can't say it's soul crushingly bad. It's definitely closer to the latter than the former though. Now I'm just trying to figure out how I can steal two hours of Ben Stiller's life so we can even up the score.
Grade: C-
Movie List 2011: 46.) The Rum Diary
The Rum Diary
Ok... so... I actually saw this one about a week ago. And while I was busy (yes, I know... taking to a blog to complain that while you were too busy to write about the now 47 movies you've seen this year, you did have plenty of time to see them... free of charge. Yes, I believe I will fuck off now, thanks.) I suppose the real reason I haven't gotten around to writing about the movie is that there just wasn't a lot of impetus to do so. Why bother? The Rum Diary is essentially the height of mediocrity. I didn't like it enough to run out here and tell you why it rocked, and it didn't suck enough to get me so riled up I couldn't help but rip it a new asshole. It just sort of was...it happened. And then it was over. Roll credits, get up, leave, and hardly devote a second thought to it the rest of your life. And so it goes. But, for my loyal reader out there, I can't miss a beat. So here I find myself... trying to pound out words to describe the movie- or not- when really a bored sigh would do.
So here you go: *sigh*.
Grade:...
Ok, so, to be fair, a few words. It wasa disappointment. It starred Johnny Depp! As Hunter S. Thompson's doppelganger, "Kemp" (the movie is based on the thinly veiled, semi-autobiographical account of how one journalist's experience in a "wild west..ish" Puerto Rico newspaper grows him from a naive upstart to a fledgling breaker of bastards' balls)! See, I don't honestly know if I'm in the minority, but while I found it- at times- nearly incomprehensible, I actually enjoyed the madcap fun of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. It had enough quirky fun to make for a good movie. Depp- of course- delivered a heck of a performance as Thompson doppelganger, Raoul Duke in that flick. Here, he gives us more of the same: staccato, clipped speech, interesting verbal imagery, and an against-the-odds coolness that seems to seep from the character. Only here, he does it all more or less so in the worst way. More staccato-ish speech pattern, less imagery, and a more contrived cool. It's a retread performance. And it might have worked if not for the lack of a quality story. At least there wasn't very much batshit craziness going on. Picking up the antics of Fear and Loathing and dropping them in the more placid environment of 1960 Puerto Rico just would have seemed sad and out of place.
I don't know, it wasn't as though Depp was phoning it in here. It was more that maybe he was trying too hard. And, maybe he really did almost pull it off. I guess as far as passion projects go, not bad.
In the end though, the fatal flaw is that nothing of consequence happens in the movie. Nothing. Hell, nothing inconsequential seems to happen either. Yeah... it's more that nothing seems to happen. Kemp hits Puerto Rico, he sees some stuff he doesn't like, drinks some rum, has some fun, a few things go bad, and he shoves off back to the States to bring the all the bastards down. As it plays out, it all would seem to amount to a bad vacation rather than a life changing event. And this wheel spinning inertia absolutely sinks the film. Nothing manages to get it out of its rut. Not Depp's game/gamey effort. Not Amber Heard's sizzling performance. Not even the few, passing moments of genuine amusement. Nothing budges the movie away from solid mediocrity. Things happen, characters move about the screen, you chuckle, you sigh, and eventually you just go home. Damn it.
Grade: C
Ok... so... I actually saw this one about a week ago. And while I was busy (yes, I know... taking to a blog to complain that while you were too busy to write about the now 47 movies you've seen this year, you did have plenty of time to see them... free of charge. Yes, I believe I will fuck off now, thanks.) I suppose the real reason I haven't gotten around to writing about the movie is that there just wasn't a lot of impetus to do so. Why bother? The Rum Diary is essentially the height of mediocrity. I didn't like it enough to run out here and tell you why it rocked, and it didn't suck enough to get me so riled up I couldn't help but rip it a new asshole. It just sort of was...it happened. And then it was over. Roll credits, get up, leave, and hardly devote a second thought to it the rest of your life. And so it goes. But, for my loyal reader out there, I can't miss a beat. So here I find myself... trying to pound out words to describe the movie- or not- when really a bored sigh would do.
So here you go: *sigh*.
Grade:...
Ok, so, to be fair, a few words. It wasa disappointment. It starred Johnny Depp! As Hunter S. Thompson's doppelganger, "Kemp" (the movie is based on the thinly veiled, semi-autobiographical account of how one journalist's experience in a "wild west..ish" Puerto Rico newspaper grows him from a naive upstart to a fledgling breaker of bastards' balls)! See, I don't honestly know if I'm in the minority, but while I found it- at times- nearly incomprehensible, I actually enjoyed the madcap fun of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. It had enough quirky fun to make for a good movie. Depp- of course- delivered a heck of a performance as Thompson doppelganger, Raoul Duke in that flick. Here, he gives us more of the same: staccato, clipped speech, interesting verbal imagery, and an against-the-odds coolness that seems to seep from the character. Only here, he does it all more or less so in the worst way. More staccato-ish speech pattern, less imagery, and a more contrived cool. It's a retread performance. And it might have worked if not for the lack of a quality story. At least there wasn't very much batshit craziness going on. Picking up the antics of Fear and Loathing and dropping them in the more placid environment of 1960 Puerto Rico just would have seemed sad and out of place.
I don't know, it wasn't as though Depp was phoning it in here. It was more that maybe he was trying too hard. And, maybe he really did almost pull it off. I guess as far as passion projects go, not bad.
In the end though, the fatal flaw is that nothing of consequence happens in the movie. Nothing. Hell, nothing inconsequential seems to happen either. Yeah... it's more that nothing seems to happen. Kemp hits Puerto Rico, he sees some stuff he doesn't like, drinks some rum, has some fun, a few things go bad, and he shoves off back to the States to bring the all the bastards down. As it plays out, it all would seem to amount to a bad vacation rather than a life changing event. And this wheel spinning inertia absolutely sinks the film. Nothing manages to get it out of its rut. Not Depp's game/gamey effort. Not Amber Heard's sizzling performance. Not even the few, passing moments of genuine amusement. Nothing budges the movie away from solid mediocrity. Things happen, characters move about the screen, you chuckle, you sigh, and eventually you just go home. Damn it.
Grade: C
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Movie List 2011: 45.) Real Steel
Real Steel
Now here's a bit of a conundrum. Was Real Steel really that good? Or did it just appear to be that good because I expected it to suck and it turned out it didn't? I guess it really doesn't matter. All that really matters is that against all odds (and we're talking months of expecting not to like it) for whatever reason, I actually enjoyed the movie.
This isn't to say it was a spectacular example of film making. I don't think it was. But it was entertaining. And it only really dove into the treacly, almost sickly sweet overtones at the very end of the movie. By that time, I had pretty well bought into the film enough that it really didn't bother me as much as it otherwise would have. (I just kind of hate when they overdo it on the sentimental stuff). I think the biggest reason for my apprehension about the movie was that the trailer played it up in such as way that I was certain it would be a saccharine serving of movie fluff. With robots kicking the shit out of each other, but still, overwhelmed by the father-son angle. And it really wasn't. I'm still not sure how this is possible. All the traps were lying in wait... all it had to do was stumble into them.
I suppose a large part of the reason why it stayed as entertaining as it did was due to Hugh Jackman. He plays, Charlie Keaton, a pseudo-deadbeat, washed up boxer who's knee deep in gambling issues due to his participation as a "trainer" of robot boxers. He always bets on his machines, but doesn't really seem to know how to use them. Jackman actually plays Charlie as a frustrating but ultimately likable character. Not so much a piece of garbage but a perpetually unlucky every dude. Not an overly touchy-feely sort either...except when he's around his childhood friend/budding love interest, Bailey (played by a borderline too eager Evangeline Lilly). Jackman's Charlie, in other words, isn't going to be one to go to pieces just because his estranged 11-year-old son (kid actor Dakota Goyo- surprisingly good... or at least not annoying. I know I'm hard on kid actors. It's not their fault. Studios just always seem to go for a look rather than talent. Here, Goyo is the perfect blend of toughness, the right look, and talent) lands squarely in his lap...that is... until he does develop a soft spot for the kid. And develop the soft spot does... just not as naturally or evenly paced as you'd hope. The point is, Charlie and Max (that'd be his son) don't lunge straight for the heart strings, no they lunge straight for the controls of their robot boxing buddies. In the end, it's actually the hapless looking, outdated, but tough robot boxing contender, Atom, that breaks through to sentimentality.
And... somehow... it all works. Well... it works well enough to be a good show. Entertaining. There is a good deal of ridiculousness, but it all seems ok somehow. As I hinted, the development of Charlie from a lone wolf to sort of willing pop is a bit rushed and jumpy but they made an effort. I suppose the real appeal here is you get to watch some- again- surprisingly good looking robots knock the hell out of each other. It's actually a lot of fun. "Real-life" Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots. And that's another thing, the robots- as opposed to that certain threequel featuring robot aliens- looked pretty damn real. They looked conceivable. They, for the most part, didn't exist on too grand a scale, and they're movements seemed fluid and natural. And the rattle of the battles- as I believe it was Roger Ebert pointed out- sounded real. It sounded like... sigh... yes... real steel colliding. Ok, maybe I'm being too hard on Transformers...though I'm not sure that's possible. But any robots on such a large scale are doomed to look kind of ridiculously fake. These were at best 9-10 foot tall machines. They didn't transform, they just brawled. It was fun to see. (As opposed to Transformers's often brain-melting whirl and spasm of robot battles). There were parts where either Charlie or Max interacted with the 'bots and I'll be damned if it didn't seem like those robots were actually right there with them. No green screen, no CGI. It was kind of cool.
In the end it all made for a nice, enjoyable film. Yes, I could have done without all the blatant sentimentality... all the obvious heart string pulls. But still, it didn't ruin the movie. But then, it'd be hard to ruin a movie with all that awesome robot fighting, right?
Well... for me it would. (Easy enough to please aren't I?)
Grade: B+
Now here's a bit of a conundrum. Was Real Steel really that good? Or did it just appear to be that good because I expected it to suck and it turned out it didn't? I guess it really doesn't matter. All that really matters is that against all odds (and we're talking months of expecting not to like it) for whatever reason, I actually enjoyed the movie.
This isn't to say it was a spectacular example of film making. I don't think it was. But it was entertaining. And it only really dove into the treacly, almost sickly sweet overtones at the very end of the movie. By that time, I had pretty well bought into the film enough that it really didn't bother me as much as it otherwise would have. (I just kind of hate when they overdo it on the sentimental stuff). I think the biggest reason for my apprehension about the movie was that the trailer played it up in such as way that I was certain it would be a saccharine serving of movie fluff. With robots kicking the shit out of each other, but still, overwhelmed by the father-son angle. And it really wasn't. I'm still not sure how this is possible. All the traps were lying in wait... all it had to do was stumble into them.
I suppose a large part of the reason why it stayed as entertaining as it did was due to Hugh Jackman. He plays, Charlie Keaton, a pseudo-deadbeat, washed up boxer who's knee deep in gambling issues due to his participation as a "trainer" of robot boxers. He always bets on his machines, but doesn't really seem to know how to use them. Jackman actually plays Charlie as a frustrating but ultimately likable character. Not so much a piece of garbage but a perpetually unlucky every dude. Not an overly touchy-feely sort either...except when he's around his childhood friend/budding love interest, Bailey (played by a borderline too eager Evangeline Lilly). Jackman's Charlie, in other words, isn't going to be one to go to pieces just because his estranged 11-year-old son (kid actor Dakota Goyo- surprisingly good... or at least not annoying. I know I'm hard on kid actors. It's not their fault. Studios just always seem to go for a look rather than talent. Here, Goyo is the perfect blend of toughness, the right look, and talent) lands squarely in his lap...that is... until he does develop a soft spot for the kid. And develop the soft spot does... just not as naturally or evenly paced as you'd hope. The point is, Charlie and Max (that'd be his son) don't lunge straight for the heart strings, no they lunge straight for the controls of their robot boxing buddies. In the end, it's actually the hapless looking, outdated, but tough robot boxing contender, Atom, that breaks through to sentimentality.
And... somehow... it all works. Well... it works well enough to be a good show. Entertaining. There is a good deal of ridiculousness, but it all seems ok somehow. As I hinted, the development of Charlie from a lone wolf to sort of willing pop is a bit rushed and jumpy but they made an effort. I suppose the real appeal here is you get to watch some- again- surprisingly good looking robots knock the hell out of each other. It's actually a lot of fun. "Real-life" Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots. And that's another thing, the robots- as opposed to that certain threequel featuring robot aliens- looked pretty damn real. They looked conceivable. They, for the most part, didn't exist on too grand a scale, and they're movements seemed fluid and natural. And the rattle of the battles- as I believe it was Roger Ebert pointed out- sounded real. It sounded like... sigh... yes... real steel colliding. Ok, maybe I'm being too hard on Transformers...though I'm not sure that's possible. But any robots on such a large scale are doomed to look kind of ridiculously fake. These were at best 9-10 foot tall machines. They didn't transform, they just brawled. It was fun to see. (As opposed to Transformers's often brain-melting whirl and spasm of robot battles). There were parts where either Charlie or Max interacted with the 'bots and I'll be damned if it didn't seem like those robots were actually right there with them. No green screen, no CGI. It was kind of cool.
In the end it all made for a nice, enjoyable film. Yes, I could have done without all the blatant sentimentality... all the obvious heart string pulls. But still, it didn't ruin the movie. But then, it'd be hard to ruin a movie with all that awesome robot fighting, right?
Well... for me it would. (Easy enough to please aren't I?)
Grade: B+
Friday, November 4, 2011
Movie List 2011: 44.) In Time
In Time
It would seem that every movie Justin Timberlake makes turns into a referendum on whether he is a good actor or whether he's just a good entertainer who happens to steal a few scenes... or.. I suppose.. whether he just plain sucks on screen. (I don't think he does. I actually think he has something of a natural and compelling screen presence. When given material suited to him, he can shine; like, say, in The Social Network). Unfortunately, if it does prove that every movie swings the pendulum of opinion in one direction or the other, In Time is going to swing it beyond solid, occasional scene-stealer to non-actor. To be fair, though, if every movie was a referendum on each casts' acting ability, pretty much everyone here would be in danger. I don't think there was a single performance in the movie that could be labeled "good"... or even "ok", "decent", "not horrible". (with the exception of -MAYBE- Johnny Galecki...maybe, but doesn't have enough screen time to qualify as a saving grace... or to excuse the Big Bang Theory [ok, I'm not a TV guy, but I have hated every minute I've seen of the show]).
Then again, it's not as though I can blame the actors. Well, I suppose more invested actors would try to make the movie work even though the dialog is horrendous. Just awful. The things they say... Amanda Seyfried and Olivia Wilde are the only ones who even bother trying to add an extra dimension to their one-note characters. And- with Galecki- the only ones who try to inject any kind of emotion. For the most part, wooden would be the best way to describe everyone's performance. Wooden and monotonous. But then, that's what the dialog encourages.
The basic premise of the movie actually held some potential. In a somewhat distant future, time has replaced money as the only source of currency. People age up to year 25 and then their clock starts ticking. Gifted one additional year of life, all earnings and transactions either add to this amount or take away from it. A bus ride, for instance, may add up to two hours of time. A cup of coffee will cost you a couple of minutes of your life. Once you run out of time/currency, you just keel over and die. It's called "timing out". You can die in more conventional ways...like gun shots to the face, but most people seem to time out, or not. Which makes for some interesting choices the characters face. An extra cuppa joe or life? Seeing how people survive in this scenario strikes me as intrinsically interesting. Adding other wrinkles including segregated time zones: those with longer lifespans can live in nicer areas (those grinding it out "one day at a time" could never have the time to move), time keepers attempting to keep people in their place to avoid the system running amok, and "minute men", gangsters who roam about and steal time from people on a whim (and yes with the label "minute men" you can begin to see where the absurdity starts to come into the picture), only would seem to add to the intrigue. Ah, but it's all in the execution. And here, it all comes off as partially realized, toothless, wooden formality. Oh, and hokey. (When a gangster threatens to clean everyone's clock if they don't give him the information he demands... well... its hard not to want to laugh... even though he's making an earnest threat. Clean their clocks? Come on, man... what's next? Yelling at them to get off your lawn?)
You know, a thought just occurred to me. It's actually pretty darn unoriginal too. It's basically Robin Hood set in a dystopian future. Robin (here: Justin Timberlake's Will Salas) sees inequality and despair dominating the landscape. He decides the only way to right all these ugly wrongs is to steal from the rich (personified here- in the Prince John role- by Vincent Kartheiser's Philippe Weis) and give to the poor. He is hunted down by the Sheriff of Nottingham-esque Time Keeper Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy). And he even has his Maid Marian- a rich brat of the establishment who he eventually wins over/falls for and who ultimately enlists in his cause- in Amanda Seyfried's Sylvia Weis. You can kind of imagine how this all plays out.
Should I be penalizing the movie for tackling the oft-tackled-to-the-point-of-being-universal story? After all, a bundle of movies pretty much can be summed up as being inspired by or knocking off the basic story of Robin Hood. (or bastardizing it, Russel Crowe's Robin Hood!) Yeah, I suppose downgrading it for its lack of originality in light of the number of times this same road has been traveled is probably pretty harsh... but.. then.. so is the movie. Harsh as in harshly bad. Director (and screenwriter) Andrew Niccol and company don't go to any effort to at least attempt to disguise the story cleverly. Or even use it as a thought-provocation device. This strikes me as a potentially- if accidentally- timely movie. But in reality it devolves into a Robin Hood sci-fi action adventure. Emphasis on devolve with little on genuine action. (Oh I forgot to mention, instead of Robin Hood's archery contest, there is a poker game). Getting back to effort, there actually appears to be little exhibited on screen. Other than effort at showing they were trying hard to be edgy and relevant with little thought on how to actually achieve edgy relevance. I'd say you achieve that by not trying so hard to be it, but rather to kind of let it happen. (Ok, that may not make any sense... what I was going for was no one who tries too hard to be cool is actually cool, right? Same principle here). Maybe it does take effort to come off as genuinely intriguing or riveting, but maybe it shouldn't be so noticeable. And maybe the dialog and over all writing should be better. And maybe the director shouldn't be satisfied with emotionless, wooden acting. And maybe they should try to give a traditional story a bit of a twist...
Yeah, maybe they should have just made a better movie.
Grade: D
It would seem that every movie Justin Timberlake makes turns into a referendum on whether he is a good actor or whether he's just a good entertainer who happens to steal a few scenes... or.. I suppose.. whether he just plain sucks on screen. (I don't think he does. I actually think he has something of a natural and compelling screen presence. When given material suited to him, he can shine; like, say, in The Social Network). Unfortunately, if it does prove that every movie swings the pendulum of opinion in one direction or the other, In Time is going to swing it beyond solid, occasional scene-stealer to non-actor. To be fair, though, if every movie was a referendum on each casts' acting ability, pretty much everyone here would be in danger. I don't think there was a single performance in the movie that could be labeled "good"... or even "ok", "decent", "not horrible". (with the exception of -MAYBE- Johnny Galecki...maybe, but doesn't have enough screen time to qualify as a saving grace... or to excuse the Big Bang Theory [ok, I'm not a TV guy, but I have hated every minute I've seen of the show]).
Then again, it's not as though I can blame the actors. Well, I suppose more invested actors would try to make the movie work even though the dialog is horrendous. Just awful. The things they say... Amanda Seyfried and Olivia Wilde are the only ones who even bother trying to add an extra dimension to their one-note characters. And- with Galecki- the only ones who try to inject any kind of emotion. For the most part, wooden would be the best way to describe everyone's performance. Wooden and monotonous. But then, that's what the dialog encourages.
The basic premise of the movie actually held some potential. In a somewhat distant future, time has replaced money as the only source of currency. People age up to year 25 and then their clock starts ticking. Gifted one additional year of life, all earnings and transactions either add to this amount or take away from it. A bus ride, for instance, may add up to two hours of time. A cup of coffee will cost you a couple of minutes of your life. Once you run out of time/currency, you just keel over and die. It's called "timing out". You can die in more conventional ways...like gun shots to the face, but most people seem to time out, or not. Which makes for some interesting choices the characters face. An extra cuppa joe or life? Seeing how people survive in this scenario strikes me as intrinsically interesting. Adding other wrinkles including segregated time zones: those with longer lifespans can live in nicer areas (those grinding it out "one day at a time" could never have the time to move), time keepers attempting to keep people in their place to avoid the system running amok, and "minute men", gangsters who roam about and steal time from people on a whim (and yes with the label "minute men" you can begin to see where the absurdity starts to come into the picture), only would seem to add to the intrigue. Ah, but it's all in the execution. And here, it all comes off as partially realized, toothless, wooden formality. Oh, and hokey. (When a gangster threatens to clean everyone's clock if they don't give him the information he demands... well... its hard not to want to laugh... even though he's making an earnest threat. Clean their clocks? Come on, man... what's next? Yelling at them to get off your lawn?)
You know, a thought just occurred to me. It's actually pretty darn unoriginal too. It's basically Robin Hood set in a dystopian future. Robin (here: Justin Timberlake's Will Salas) sees inequality and despair dominating the landscape. He decides the only way to right all these ugly wrongs is to steal from the rich (personified here- in the Prince John role- by Vincent Kartheiser's Philippe Weis) and give to the poor. He is hunted down by the Sheriff of Nottingham-esque Time Keeper Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy). And he even has his Maid Marian- a rich brat of the establishment who he eventually wins over/falls for and who ultimately enlists in his cause- in Amanda Seyfried's Sylvia Weis. You can kind of imagine how this all plays out.
Should I be penalizing the movie for tackling the oft-tackled-to-the-point-of-being-universal story? After all, a bundle of movies pretty much can be summed up as being inspired by or knocking off the basic story of Robin Hood. (or bastardizing it, Russel Crowe's Robin Hood!) Yeah, I suppose downgrading it for its lack of originality in light of the number of times this same road has been traveled is probably pretty harsh... but.. then.. so is the movie. Harsh as in harshly bad. Director (and screenwriter) Andrew Niccol and company don't go to any effort to at least attempt to disguise the story cleverly. Or even use it as a thought-provocation device. This strikes me as a potentially- if accidentally- timely movie. But in reality it devolves into a Robin Hood sci-fi action adventure. Emphasis on devolve with little on genuine action. (Oh I forgot to mention, instead of Robin Hood's archery contest, there is a poker game). Getting back to effort, there actually appears to be little exhibited on screen. Other than effort at showing they were trying hard to be edgy and relevant with little thought on how to actually achieve edgy relevance. I'd say you achieve that by not trying so hard to be it, but rather to kind of let it happen. (Ok, that may not make any sense... what I was going for was no one who tries too hard to be cool is actually cool, right? Same principle here). Maybe it does take effort to come off as genuinely intriguing or riveting, but maybe it shouldn't be so noticeable. And maybe the dialog and over all writing should be better. And maybe the director shouldn't be satisfied with emotionless, wooden acting. And maybe they should try to give a traditional story a bit of a twist...
Yeah, maybe they should have just made a better movie.
Grade: D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)